.
Feedback

State Court Upholds RivCo Ban on Dispensaries

One medical marijuana dispensary in Thousand Palms remains closed following ruling.

Riverside County officials today applauded a state appellate court ruling upholding the county's right to order that two marijuana dispensaries immediately shut down operations.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside affirmed the county's power to outlaw storefront cannabis outlets in unincorporated communities.

The case stemmed from a county lawsuit seeking to shutter MOSA Collective Inc. in Thousand Palms and Nature's Relief Group just outside Murrieta.

In May, Superior Court Judge John Vineyard denied the county's request
for a preliminary injunction compelling the dispensaries to close, saying the
petition lacked merit. The county immediately appealed, resulting in a July
hearing before the appellate court, which ultimately reversed Vineyard.

Last November, the same appellate justices upheld the city of
Riverside's blanket ban on cannabis dispensaries, bolstering the county's
efforts to shutter more than 30 such storefront operations then in business.

The county Executive Office released a statement saying the court's most
recent decision, handed down Tuesday, "sends a clear message to businesses
within the court's jurisdiction -- Riverside, San Bernardino and Inyo counties -
- that local governments can ban dispensaries.''

Under a 2006 zoning ordinance, storefront marijuana dispensaries are
prohibited from operating in unincorporated areas of the county. As with most
places throughout the state, the operations sprang up in response to voter-
approved Proposition 215, also known as the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which paved the way to legal medical marijuana distribution.

According to county officials, dispensaries bear the legal burden of
proving they qualify to conduct business under the CCUA or the Medical
Marijuana Program Act. County attorneys argue that storefront variety cannabis
dispensaries do not comply with state law because all most of them require of
"members'' is a signature, not a clinical diagnosis proving a genuine medical
need for marijuana to alleviate pain or other problems.

Department of Code Enforcement officers will be checking to verify that
the two dispensaries against which the injunction lawsuit was filed close down
in the coming weeks, county officials said. Fines and other penalties could be
imposed if they do not.

Meantime, the county is pressing ahead with an appeal of a decision last
month by Superior Court Judge Ronald Taylor, who ruled that the county's
ordinance against storefront dispensaries was pre-empted by state law.
In that case, the county is suing to close 16 cannabis distribution
outlets spread throughout the county.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Palm Desert Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
B.K. Holthaus May 16, 2013 at 06:05 pm
You';re welcome, Renee but I don't really expect thanks for my contributions to the classroom. IRead More wasn't going to stand by and see kids not have the basic things they needed to get through the class and most teachers are of the same mind :) Sadly, school budgets have never covered all the needs in classrooms.
Renee Schiavone (Editor) May 16, 2013 at 02:15 pm
@B.K.-- Thank you for your help with the community :) I have a great respect for all teachers!
B.K. Holthaus May 16, 2013 at 12:56 pm
I was a teacher for 30 years. There was not ONEschool year when I didn't personally pay for schoolRead More supplies for my students ($500-$1,500 a yr)
Eye on the Desert March 3, 2013 at 11:26 pm
Well said, Linda.
linda hanna March 3, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Dorothy you actually believe criminals can't get guns without a background check. Wow are youRead More naive. Just because YOU don't understand why some people want a particular weapon...does not mean you can impose your ownership standards on someone else. Suppose I suggest you don't need the particular car you drive or the particlar beverage you drink? I see you are opposed to hunting. How do you feel about abortion? Typical liberal double standard at play here??
linda hanna March 3, 2013 at 09:57 pm
Totally agree. This is just the beginning of a gun grab. All it will accomplish is furtherRead More restrictions on law abiding citizens. Chicago is a perfect example. Strictest gun control in the nation and highest gun crime and murder rate. Criminals do not comply with the law. Only legal citizens will lose their rights to own the weapon of their choice. Liberals are all about choice when it comes to killing an unborn, but when it comes to a lawful gunowner's choice it's a different story altogether.